Executive Summary: Key legal and evidentiary issues

• The proper application of Rule 7-9(2)(a) of The King’s Bench Rules in striking a claim

• The requirement to plead essential facts establishing a reasonable cause of action

• Whether a minister of the Crown can be sued in a representative or personal capacity

• The necessity of demonstrating a legal relationship to ground liability against the government

• The relevance of Charter and Aboriginal rights arguments to procedural deficiencies in pleadings

• The appropriateness of denying leave to amend when pleadings are fundamentally deficient

Background of the case

Dr. Steve Fraser brought a claim against the Government of Saskatchewan (Ministry of Advanced Education), Minister Colleen Young, and others. The claim arose after the termination of education funding he previously received through the Gabriel Dumont Institute (GDI). Dr. Fraser alleged several causes of action, including negligence, breach of contract, defamation, injurious falsehood, and interference with economic interests. The government defendants applied to strike the claim under Rule 7-9(2)(a) of The King’s Bench Rules, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

Decision of the Chambers judge

The Chambers judge struck the claim entirely as against the Government and Ms. Young. The judge found that the claim contained no allegations against Ms. Young, and failed to plead the essential elements of any valid cause of action against the Government of Saskatchewan. It was also determined that Dr. Fraser’s pleadings did not establish any legal relationship between him and the government capable of grounding liability. The judge concluded that the deficiencies were so fundamental that leave to amend would serve no purpose.

Arguments on appeal

On appeal, Dr. Fraser submitted that the Chambers judge had erred in striking the claim and in denying leave to amend. He argued that his rights under sections 15 and 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 (Aboriginal rights), had been violated. He further asserted that evidence supporting his claim should have been considered and that his pleadings should have been permitted to be amended to cure any defects.

Court of Appeal’s reasoning

The Court of Appeal rejected all of Dr. Fraser’s arguments. It held that Rule 7-9(3) clearly prohibits consideration of evidence on an application to strike for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action. Pleadings must themselves contain essential facts that could support a legal claim, and constitutional rights do not exempt a litigant from this requirement. The Court found that no actionable claim had been pleaded against Ms. Young, as a minister of the Crown cannot be sued in a representative capacity, and no personal wrongdoing was alleged. Similarly, no factual foundation was pleaded that could establish liability on the part of the Government of Saskatchewan for decisions made by GDI.

Conclusion of the appeal

The Court of Appeal upheld the Chambers judge’s decision to strike the claim and to refuse leave to amend, finding no error in law. The deficiencies in the pleadings were so substantial that no amendment could cure them. The appeal was dismissed. While the government defendants were successful, they did not seek costs, and no costs order was made.